The Great Disruption: How humankind can thrive in the 21st Century

[@sammi221us]

I listened to his presentation last night on NPR (California) with Q&As, and I was stunned! Finally, a reasonable voice! Paul Gilding should be the World's President! He is so erudite, so knowledgeable, so thoughtful! We need to spread the TRUTH and to shut the 'politicians for sale'. Like he said - it depends on each of us to accomplish it!!! I am with you, Paul! You made me see my life and my future from a very different angle....Thank you!

[@queuesnake704]

Kinda strangely comforting to have someone calmly explain how we're going to get through the zombie apocalypse.

[@rctube1958]

@Mueiwark Meaning: The speakers identify what they consider to be a problem. However, enough people don't believe them, so they discuss and argue the merits of exaggerating the dimensions of the problem to get more people to agree with them and take action. They are very straight forward about it.

[@Agnotio]

@mahkus1 what he's saying is that we are using 50% more of the acres than is sustainable, not that we are using 50% more of the acres that exist (obviously that would be impossible).

[@rh001YT]

@unloads Thanks for the input, but I would like details. For instance, with ocean fish, there are now enforced limits many places, so there we are using under 100%. Timber may be over-harvested, but what about timber farms & replants underway. Also, won't market forces sustain a certain amount of timber? But there is still a lot of timber in the world. How does the speaker gauge what is the right amount of timber to be regrowing every year? I would give a full and detailed explanation.

[@werdnativ]

@mahkus1 It's a question of sustainability: you can overdraw your bank account, but you can't keep withdrawing more than you deposit, month after month.

[@elsquibbs]

@lemon8productions Because it's usually easier to shoot the messenger rather than the message.

[@queuesnake704]

It's all a lot different in practice, that's for damn sure. "Neo, sooner or later, you're going to learn, just as I did, that there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path" - Morpheus

[@bbb695]

@MarkoKraguljac The problem with this type of calculation is that it assumes that the current situation will continue unchanged. an example, in the early 20th century people were using wood far faster than we could grow new trees (greater than 100% usage), but in the late 20th century we moved to using more fossil fuels and less wood and the total number of trees in the western world increased, in 20 years we might get our energy from thorium and peak oil will look like a silly idea.

[@bluefootedpig]

@mcamelyne cont... follow up. other things oil is used for.. plastic, look around at all the plastic. Computer are made using oil. Farming uses tons of oil. Cars, even bikes require some oil, often shipped in plastic containers. Right now, we are looking for oil in the artics, any idea the cost it takes to look / harvest from these extreme environments? Companys go after low hanging fruit first. Why are we exploring the artics if we have so much?

[@BloodMonkeysUnited]

@rh001YT is it possible that the statistic includes buildings with several floors. i mean, if you took every building with more than one story and laid it so it was all on the 1st floor then it would it probably take-up a very large portion of our land mass.

[@RajThamotheram]

It's strangely reassuring (but also scary) that senior mainstream academics even in the US are starting to give the same message of a coming disruption. The tone is very different but have a look at Princeton analyst Prof Anne-Marie Slaughter piece in Foreign Policy this month (Problems Will Be Global -- And Solutions Will Be, Too). And speaking of US academics check out Umair Haque's blog "You Have the Power to Choose Prosperity"

[@m0rtem]

@bisek it's not Earth's capacity, it's Earth's capacity to live sustainably. The rate of what we're consuming resources is much more faster than Earth can provide.

[@rh001YT]

@BloodMonkeysUnited yes, and since the speaker does not give grounds for the claim, anything at all is possible. It could be that the nonsensical claim that we are using 150% of resources depends on future of projections of running out of oil and coal, or future equal distribuition of global resources to all people based on the number alive now or then. Neither India, China nor Brazil show any signs of limiting their economies, resource consumption, so it makes more sense to play to win now.

[@Soldier957]

I agree with most things he said, BUT I believe it's the politicians who need to be getting scared of the bad scenarios, most people already are.

[@bisek]

I don't understand how we can be using 150% of the Earth's capacity. Aren't we all still here? Isn't there only 1 Earth? How is this possible? Someone please explain this.

[@bluefootedpig]

@mcamelyne Scientists in the 70s were predicting the US peak oil, not overall. And they were right within 10 years. The peak oil for the world was 2020, and it looks like we are hitting that with a rocky top. And we do have replacement products, but they are currently illegal. And while energy can be produced by the sun, you fail to realize we have no good way to transport energy. Batteries are horrible at this current point.

[@MarkoKraguljac]

@bbb695 His conclusion that throughout history we never did things when we knew the time is right but we waited for last moment to be pushed by circumstances, is valuable IMO. Deep inside, I am optimistic, but such inertial approach might cost us a lot. Greatest transitions must be planed well and ahead.

[@niriop]

@maosef "he doesn't know what kind of technology there will be in the future" Yeah, I mean self-growing luna potatoes could be invented any day but WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR CERTAIN OR AT ALL! Why do you want to gamble on humanity's future? Furthermore, as he said, your main complaint seems to be "What if create a better world for nothing?" It shouldn't take the looming threat of an ecological disaster to help restructure the way we live to a more rational and safe state.

[@bluefootedpig]

@mcamelyne The oil reserves are already accounted for. Watch the youtube video. The 2030 prediction assumes that we have only discovered a total fo 60% of the oil on earth. Those untapped are actually already accounted for in teh 2020 prediction. BTW, we hit peak oil. Peak oil being the highest amount of production. We hit it a few years back, and haven't been able to match that oil production. Even with renewable, how do you drive without portal energy?

[@kokopelli314]

@bluefootedpig I watched the video about the purity of pricing. It seemed naive and ideological. Do you believe the Venus Project to be naive and ideological as well?

[@bluefootedpig]

@dontblockmedk I have seen the videos, discussed it with many people, and there are fundamental flaws. Handling real scarcity, without a monetary system, is by far the biggest hole in the plan. They display no plans for how to handle that. And while yes there is infinite of some resources, there is cost to build those, and match pace with our increasing use. Right now, the average person uses 1.5 earths worth of resources. So... there is the number one problem, how would this abundence deal?

[@matt4787]

@MarkoKraguljac Perhaps he should have articulated that better than to say that we are using 150% of Earth's acreage. Also he seems to fail to realize the price system just in general. It is a very simple concept that when something is more scarce it has a higher price than when its supply is higher. So naturally prices are going to fix it. While prices of one thing goes so high there is economic incentive to innovate and become either more efficient with a particular resource or

[@Wayoutthere]

@mahkus1 What they propably mean is expantion using gen-tech, hydrophonics etc.

[@NZtrillion]

@DerivedEnergy yes

[@1x93cm]

@mahkus1 you sir- hit the nail on the proverbial edge

[@bluefootedpig]

@mcamelyne cont... the current assumption is that we have discovered only half the oil we can get, including the amount that we will be able to get due to advancing technology. So all discovered oil + factored advances in technology = a total of about 60% of all known oil. So we still need to discover the other 40%. Why not take a little time, and watch some documentaries on it. I suggest "Collapse" on netflix or "most important video you'll ever see" on youtube.

[@Wayoutthere]

@rctube1958 'beyond the actual problem'?? Meaning??

[@dontblockmedk]

@b Sustainable through abundance means 'producing more than you can use' NOT limiting stuff. Today we already have machines doing most of the work. The point that you don't understand is that THERE ARE NO FUCKING JOBS FOR 'MOST' PEOPLE. So any system based on JOBS is DOOMED. WAKE UP Instead of just bashing ideas and spewing your erroneous assertions, tell us your solutions. I am done with you. If you want to learn something watch the vids. v=4Z9WVZddH9w

[@bbb695]

@MarkoKraguljac See I think this view misses the point; the solutions came because people anticipated that at some point in the future there would be money to be made by solving the oncoming problem. Until we realized that there was a problem no one can start trying to solve it so, it's inevitable that the problem will be almost upon us before we come up with a solution.

[@NZtrillion]

@DerivedEnergy how? because he is a 'leader', and the audience are his 'messengers'. and if all they are doing is spreading a message, with no personal action - then it's a waste of time. how? because the are consumers. how? because people spend money on shit they don't need.

[@Malvisk]

@mahkus1 Think of it as an ship's engine. A ship's engine and design is setup for a cruise speed. If a ship can maintain that cruise speed for a very long time, and with normal maintenance will see a fruitful life. However, if you have a captain that goes FULL AHEAD all the damn time... going well over the cruise speed. Sure, the ship will go fast, but it will not be able to maintain that speed. The engine will breakdown much, much quicker. What we have right now, is NOT sustainable.

[@conchamolusco]

Im from Uruguay and I understood it

[@aclima93]

That bit about the climate changes was rather ironical albeit true.

[@KOakaKO]

The discussion begins with the flawed premise that "we" use "150 %" of resources available. The only way he could be correct in making that statement is if he's referring to an agricultural model that uses only a strictly "organic" system of field maintenance. Norman Borlaug was called the "father of the Green revolution", yet HE is the one who showed the world that we can continue to survive with the proper pesticides, herbicides and hybrid plants. Don't start your talk on a flawed premise.

[@BrotherAlpha]

@mahkus1 Sustainability. We are uses 50% more than we ca use in a sustainable way.

[@niriop]

Excellent stuff--fuck the free market haters! This is a true scientific approach to social economics.

[@rolandi15]

@DvineGaming Hey I wouldn't normally say anything but your comment is unnecessarily rude. I don't want you to represent Canada in such a negative way.

[@sadkjuliwefuhwviergbvo]

pleaaaase undertitle :( I would love to understand it but thei accent is to hard for me sometimes :/

[@bluefootedpig]

@dontblockmedk I told you, i have seen them all, and they fail to address basic human desires. Yes those are not "needs" but you need a system that can determine who gets those. In the monetary system, you amount of money is realitive to the value you have added to society by the scarcity of your skills. Here is the problem: abundence means we need to do it sustainable. Sustainable means scarcity. So in this venus project, they claim to do both, when it is not possible to do both.

[@queuesnake704]

Yay, paradigm shifts!

[@dontblockmedk]

@b You definitely didn't watch the vids because you keep making totally erroneous comments that are thoroughly explained in the vids. I never said anything about over population. The movie talks about using metal and composites to build houses. One last time, the point of ZG is that we can use the scientific method to optimize and automate the production and distribution of all necessities of life for all people. Valid objections or better solutions, welcome, anything else NOT.

[@dontblockmedk]

I am going to need specific examples of what scarcity you are talking about because as I wrote we always have substitutes. There is absolutely nothing I can think of that is required for human life that we can't produce in abundance. Also the money market system CREATES the scarcity, because there will NEVER be enough jobs or money to go around. Summary, in the REAL world we have everything we need to survive and thrive, in money market system we are fucked.

[@BertBerg]

to save humanity you need to save the whole environment. without clean air, water,... no nature will grow but also no humans will live. We need to focus MORE on the ecological, it's not a mater we can "give up" or throw away like we do with all our food, electronics and products we consume. We will never fully be in charge of this whole planet. we need to lower our consuming behaviour and way of western life, and move to a more PLANET-centred way of consuming instead of a SELF-centred one.

[@dontblockmedk]

"Money/market" is ROOT of problems, how do we: 1. stop corruption caused by profit motive? 2. ensure everyone has minimum necessities? ANSWER 1. FREELY Share ALL resources & knowledge worldwide, NO more money/property 2. Use LATEST technology to create an ABUNDANCE of all our needs, NO more waste/theft 3. Automate/localize ALL production and distribution, NO more central control/wage slavery v=4Z9WVZddH9w

[@unloads]

@rh001YT 150% of the regenerative rate of the earths regenerative resources.

[@NZtrillion]

these guys are sitting up there, and the audience is nodding along. they're all saying the people of the world must change. but i bet they have 2 or 3 very new vehicles, living in a fancy house with apartment in the city. boat in the driveway... people want to tell others to change but arent willing to do it themselves.

[@Scinery]

Haha, i'm Australian (Speaker is Australian) and i'll admit his accent was a little difficult to follow

[@Lemon8]

Why don't people in intelligent conversations never distinguish man made Climate Change critics from a Climate Change denier?

[@0nagel0]

@hawking8 i agree but in a way i know that anyway with time the system will anyway collapse, and the same probleme will occure "unemployment, crime would rocket, western welfare services would barely exist and government would become highly authoritarian." so i prefere lose everything trying than losing everything without even try i use to think like you, but know i have kids and i really want to try for them to be happy tomorrow, even we couldnt make it we have to try that whats makes us humain

[@niriop]

@HowTheWorldWorks Care to explain? Or are you just trolling?

[@Ditrix88]

Louder videos please.

[@bluefootedpig]

@dontblockmedk Well, let can go with the classic, beach front property. Who gets the nice looking homes? Is every single property going to be the exact same size? if not then who gets the larger properties? What about properties near a park? vs near a factory (which is known to call cancer)? Need more scarcity? what about new technology. Ipad 2 comes out, who gets the first 100? think about it, millions want it, but your first patch is only thousands. Your inventions are a cause of scarcity.

[@tattot15]

im so high, and all i can hear is "blah blah blah blah blah" XD hahahahahaha

[@rctube1958]

An extended discussion of how to scare people beyond the actual problem is not the way to convince anyone to take you seriously. BTW, your concern, as you understand it, is bogus.

[@bluefootedpig]

@dontblockmedk Sure it does. To be sustainable means limiting how much you use, limiting is not abundence. 1) nope, at least not what we current eat. The average food travels 2000 - 3000 miles. 2) nope, most grown food still needs man pioleted machinery to harvest. Building buildings is still done by humans. Firefighting is still done by humans, police is not automated either. So you have proven nothing.

[@dontblockmedk]

@bluefootedpig Sustainable does NOT mean scarcity, it is the OPPOSITE. The REAL questions. 1 Can we produce ABUNDANT food, water, energy, etc for everyone or not? 2 Do we have the technology to automate most of the work or not? If no, prove it. If yes, 'money for labor' is OBSOLETE. So the only logical system is to produce abundance and just distribute it. There can only be force when there is NOT enough for everyone, ONLY with abundance EVERYONE is FREE. GET IT. v=4Z9WVZddH9w

[@bluefootedpig]

@dontblockmedk So your problem is that we have an over population issue... good call and very true. But producing more isn't going to suddenly help. Look at housing, we need more housing, yet we are eating up forests faster than we can grow them. I don't know what you are looking for, I can offer solutions, or ideas for fixing the issues, but what issue are you trying to takle? Or is the issue "how do we do nothing yet live"? You claim there is no jobs, why not farm? produce your own food?

[@DerivedEnergy]

@NZtrillion ''people want to tell others to change but arent willing to do it themselves.'' Fine. Let's assume he's a hypocrite. That changes the veracity of his truth claims how?

[@bluefootedpig]

@mcamelyne I don't listen to the oil fields, i look at the raw data, provided by the world organizations that look into it. I take it you still haven't watched the video becuase you make claims that are addessed in it. Drilling is not easier on a floating, shifting patch of ice. They have already had multitude of problems with it, and has cost them millions if not in the billions in losses with no fruits of the labor yet. Plus, this oil is ALREADY accounted for. cont...

[@bluefootedpig]

@roidroid I know right? I can't believe there is 3 as well. Even more so when I looked up the facts in the first movie and found about 1/3 to be false. Then I watched the 2nd one and found more falsehood, and the last is just full of them.

[@bluefootedpig]

@dontblockmedk You keep saying better solutions, but you do not present a problem. Okay, my solution is 5, which is the answer to 2+3. You see, you haven't even given me a problem. Even metals and composites, take natural resources, which require us to gather them. We do not have, nor do we have anything close, that can resemble the ability to power the machinery that makes energy as cheap and effective as it is now. Look up what machinery is used to dig out metals from a mountain.

[@bluefootedpig]

@dontblockmedk Hey there, i thought you might find this video interesting.. watch?v=BbGKkV-WoYg it kind of explains why the venus project can't work at current levels, or maybe ever, in a very simple manner.

[@matt4787]

@matt4787 use a completely different resource for the same basic purpose. So the whole concept is still idiotic and has been proven to be idiotic by simple economic priniciples. And once again as he says so many times this is not a philosophy this is science and has been proven in the past over and over again. Try seaching Norman Borlaug and see that as just one of many examples.

[@bluefootedpig]

@dontblockmedk Sounds like venus project... Does it address real scarcity yet? things that cannot be created in abundence?

[@1x93cm]

population crash right around the corner....

[@HowTheWorldWorks]

This is one of the most anti-scientific videos ever produced on KZbin.

[@dontblockmedk]

@bluefootedpig You are confusing wants with needs. NONE of those examples you give are human needs. FIRST we must use the scientific method to produce a sustainable abundance of all human NEEDS while automating the labor, THEN we can worry about who gets a bigger house. There are many ways to distribute new stuff that are better, fairer than anything we do now. I am sure you can think of a few right of the top of your head. Please WATCH for answers v=4Z9WVZddH9w

[@TehMovieMusketeer]

im dutch, i understood it .___.

[@roidroid]

@dontblockmedk there's a 3? oh god. *face palm*

[@unloads]

@mcamelyne Your suggestion is ridiculous.

[@mahkus1]

What a load of rubbish. How can we be using 150% of the earth's acreage - the earth doesn't have 150% of its acreage. It has exactly 100% of its acreage.

[@CurtHowland]

Obviously people who think all economists are Keynesians. Read some Austrian economics, and get a real education.

[@GoSICKeM]

@HowTheWorldWorks you, sir, are a troll.

[@matt4787]

If we can use 150% of the Earth's acres then we might as well be capable of a 1000%. Where is the foundation of such an outrageous claim? And this isn't philosophy it is science. LOL. Well I do happen to know math and you can not use over 100% of a finite source. Sigh...

[@aschwa5]

Yeah, but actually he's worse than a troll; he's an ideologue.

[@kurichka]

Difficult accent :(

[@ayahoo16]

You sir are wrong on so many levels. Jus sayin

[@roidroid]

@HowTheWorldWorks watch?v=knB6RgYFKdY burn